Human Creativity/Intelligence

[justone]

But i'm sure those theorums make a few assumptions...

The trick is that they make MINIMAL assumption. Do you need me to explain?

 

[conquer]

NASA designed them for a specific program. Three antennae that they developed though the above program are currently deployed in space

Still the robot was programed to do the work, it is not an initiative of the machine to make one. Creativity is something that you develop from your insight or your thoughts, and these robots can repeat and associate ideas and information only. What about asking them, hey dude, how do you feel today? Did you rest well last night? Are you in love with Tarah's laptop?

They cannot think.

Being pretty is a horrible measure of an antenna, and furthermore you completely missed my point. A computer created that antenna. Does that make it creative?

Yes indeed, check the ancient art, look the ancient tools, observe their drawings, even the rustic ones, since his appearance on earth man was looking for aesthetic, something that machines can't feel. One main base of creativity is aesthetic.

One could easily add a notion of aesthetics into the fitness function of a genetic algorithm. For NASA's application it would be completely retarded to do so, but it is far from impossible

Oh yeah? Look how beautiful the space machines are, the designs of most of the equipments and instruments, we do enjoy creativity, we cover the ugly and bored looking algorithms with beauty.

I can't fathom why you're harping on about 'good looking antennas.' NASA wasn't designing something pretty and it is not a shortcoming of computers that they did not. If making 'pretty things' is necessary for intelligence (an idiotic notion, but whatever, I'll run with it) I would direct you to the Electric Sheep screensaver. When you have this screensaver installed, you can at your leisure mark whatever the screensaver happens to be showing as either good or bad. That input is used with another genetic algorithm to create new images and animations based on what people like and don't like. The results are often quite spectacular.

I would suggest downloading it and running it for a few minutes for a better idea. Still images cannot do Electric Sheep justice

Abstract art. Even children with poor initiatives can do abstract art.

Creativity is more than letting loose the elements and observe them making figures at random. Come on.

Creativity is to invent something new even without knowledge of much technology or of other branches of knowlege, like Jules Verne inventing stories where a look alike TV was thought.

Look, machines have not thoughts, like thinking about their future or why you built them, and as long as they are boxes accepting your programs, the machines will only give back what the input information can work best by your needs, not so by their own findings.

The former antennas in comparison with the new antennas is the result of trial and error in your programs, not so the machine's attempts, because the machine has an artificial brain but it has not what we have: mind.:coffeepap

 

[creativedreams]

Still the robot was programed to do the work, it is not an initiative of the machine to make one.

Like I said before it's all about problem solving and learning (hearing or loading information) and constantly incorporating the new information to upgrade everthing in use around it. If the antanae was a part of the robots world then it would constantly be analyzed like everything else around it for possible upgrades as new information is either heard or downloaded.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Still the robot was programed to do the work, it is not an initiative of the machine to make one. Creativity is something that you develop from your insight or your thoughts, and these robots can repeat and associate ideas and information only. What about asking them, hey dude, how do you feel today? Did you rest well last night? Are you in love with Tarah's laptop?

They cannot think.

You should look into the various chatbots that compete in Turing Test competitions. The Turing Test is an exercise in which a human judge converses with an unknown counterpart that may be another human or may be a computer. If the second party is a computer and the judge cannot tell that it is a computer, the computer is said to have passed the Turing Test. It's a well known problem in computing and one that generates a good deal of interest, and some of the bots are getting pretty damned good. One example of such a bot is Jabberwacky's George. You can, in fact, ask George "Hey dud, how do you feel today?"

Yes indeed, check the ancient art, look the ancient tools, observe their drawings, even the rustic ones, since his appearance on earth man was looking for aesthetic, something that machines can't feel. One main base of creativity is aesthetic.

Firstly, as I posted above, computers are certainly capable of making aesthetically pleasing creations. Aesthetic is not, however, a necessary component of creativity. Not every creative venture even has a visual component. The works of Shakespeare have no visual component, and are still creative. If one is creating something that is meant to be looked at, looking good could well be a requirement of creativity. There are many things in this world that are not visual, however, and many of them exhibit creativity.

Oh yeah? Look how beautiful the space machines are, the designs of most of the equipments and instruments, we do enjoy creativity, we cover the ugly and bored looking algorithms with beauty.

I challenge you to find one single instance of spacecraft design that is based in aesthetics and has not basis in functionality. Many such things happen to look cool, but they are not designed to do so.

The equipment is the equipment. The 'ugly and bored looking' bits are perfectly good as long as they are functional.

Abstract art. Even children with poor initiatives can do abstract art.

Creativity is more than letting loose the elements and observe them making figures at random. Come on.

You're just flailing. Every time I contradict you you just shift your position. You say that computers cannot create, so I show you the creation of a computer. You say it isn't pretty so it doesn't count, so I show you something pretty. Now it isn't the right kind of pretty? :roll:

Creativity is to invent something new even without knowledge of much technology or of other branches of knowlege, like Jules Verne inventing stories where a look alike TV was thought.

I'd love to see you find even one person on Earth who shares the position that in order to be creative a creation must be made 'without knowledge of much technology or other branches of knowledge.' Just keep on shifting those goalposts

Look, machines have not thoughts, like thinking about their future or why you built them, and as long as they are boxes accepting your programs, the machines will only give back what the input information can work best by your needs, not so by their own findings.

I have no idea what this 'sentence' is supposed to mean. "the machines will only give back what the input information can work best by your needs"

The former antennas in comparison with the new antennas is the result of trial and error in your programs, not so the machine's attempts, because the machine has an artificial brain but it has not what we have: mind.:coffeepap

Again, this sentence makes no sense. "The former antennas in comparison with the new antennas is the result of trial and error in your programs, not so the machine's attempts"

 

[conquer]

You should look into the various chatbots that compete in Turing Test competitions. The Turing Test is an exercise in which a human judge converses with an unknown counterpart that may be another human or may be a computer. If the second party is a computer and the judge cannot tell that it is a computer, the computer is said to have passed the Turing Test. It's a well known problem in computing and one that generates a good deal of interest, and some of the bots are getting pretty damned good. One example of such a bot is Jabberwacky's George. You can, in fact, ask George "Hey dud, how do you feel today?"

Lol, I tried twice.

Read them.

(Robot) Hello
(Conquer) My sister is lonely, what can we do.
(Robot) Lovely.

Lovely?! Do you call that a "human response?" Get out of here!

I wrote the reply here, but the system crashed so I had to go back to that site and ask again. At this time the robot had another phrase presenting itself.

(Robot) Hello, my name is George and I am the human.
(Conquer) Sure, right.
(Robot) What's your name?
(Conquer) Who cares.
(Robot) You obviously don't.
(Conquer) You are not george.
(Robot) Good work!

Catch you again stupid machine!

Come on man, that machine can't think, and it has been prepared to answer common questions. A teenager can burn the wires of this machine with a common conversation at young dudes style.

Your point here is proved invalid.

First, the machine took about a minute to answer my response in the second try (sure, right), and right after that, the machine appeared to become smart, but finally it broke up again with any answer which won't follow up a former phrase when I said that the robot wasn't george.

(By the way, the machine "its" and is not human, so the name of this machine is "george" and not "George" regardless of the claims of the robot's makers)

Oh, and to the guy who is behind the dummy computerized robot and answers through "george", tell him "hi" from my part.:coffeepap

 

[Wessexman]

Everything a human does can all be broken down to patterns.

Just equate personality types to a given circumstance and reactions are very predictable.

Humans have self-awareness which means that this is not completely true.

 

[Mach]

Do you think it is possible to make something (like a robot) thats 'creativity' is greater than that of a human?

It is entirely possible in theory. Some hacks have attempted, usually on the basis of fragile ego or religious zeal, to "disprove" that, but both their understanding of what a proof is, and the logic they employ, are always demonstrated to be false.

Or can you make a robot with greater 'intelligence' than that of a human?

Entirely possible, and probably if we make AI at all, it will simply be a technological path to greater and greater intelligence.

In which case that robot would know he is greater than you, and take advantage of you...(IRobot anyone?)

What would a robot with greater capacities than humans, need to take advantage of a human for? Such an AIs greatest virtue will hopefully end up as pity, not envy..lol. Hey, can I have parts that cannot be replaced so when they break I no longer exist, like you meat-bags have?

This theoretical "event" is commonly termed: Technological Singularity:
Technological singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also it's the hallmark of some really good Sci-fi books from Ian Banks revolving around the "Culture" setting. Basically way way far in the future the "culture" is the culmination of earth-based life that has AIs so far and away more capable than humans that they basically run the entire civilization, in conjunction with humans, under certain restrictions they place on themselves, but on an entirely different magnitude of awareness. Other civializations exist, some more powerful (maybe?) some weaker, some religious in their actions, some far beyond current civilizatiosn but who went extinct, in some cases intentionally. Really rich stuff, good twists too, there are a number of books in that "Culture" stetting.

The scope of the problem may be so large that while it may be theorized to be possible, it may end up being so cost-prohibitive that it doesn't happen before we kill ourselves.

Currently in the news linked to possible learning machine applications:
Logic circuits that program themselves: memristors in action - Ars Technica

(memristors are a fundamental device like resistors discovered within the last few years, re-writes textbooks...)

 

[theTANTALIZER]

Yes, It has been proven. See Arnold Schwarzenegger from Terminator to Governer of California.

Do you think it is possible to make something (like a robot) thats 'creativity' is greater than that of a human?

Or can you make a robot with greater 'intelligence' than that of a human? In which case that robot would know he is greater than you, and take advantage of you...(IRobot anyone?)

Basically, can humans make something smarter/more creative than themselves?

It's a pretty deep topic :doh

 

[creativedreams]

Yes, It has been proven. See Arnold Schwarzenegger from Terminator to Governer of California.

Terminator IV out yet?

 

[Orion]

I believe it's possible and it will one day happen. Human imagination is pretty limitless and that has allowed our technology to advance exponentially faster with each passing year.

As far as I know, the current limits to cybernetics are processing speed and the ability to mimic a neural net. They can stack processors but the speed won't come close to a human brain, even though computers can do complex calculations better than us.

If we can make an AI even 5% smarter than us (whatever "smart" means), humans will eventually become the #2 species on the planet. Though, I think it is more likely that humans will use technology to augment themselves, and transfer consciousness, than it would be to create AI that is smarter than us but still serves us. We would of course want to use that AI to make ourselves better.

 

[mikhail]

Do you think it is possible to make something (like a robot) thats 'creativity' is greater than that of a human?

Or can you make a robot with greater 'intelligence' than that of a human? In which case that robot would know he is greater than you, and take advantage of you...(IRobot anyone?)

Basically, can humans make something smarter/more creative than themselves?

It's a pretty deep topic :doh

In short yes. I imagine it would get to the point where we where having robots developed from other robots.

 

[UtahBill]

First, develop REAL intelligence....then try to reproduce it artificially....
Any other effort will likely be disastrous.